Alternative Food Resources

Abstract

To feed and provide food security to all people in the world is a big challenge to acheived with 2030 agenda. under nutrition obesity are to the opposite of a healthy nutritional status.both condition are associatedwith unbalanced nutrition,absence of food are excess of non-nutritive food intake.This two nutritional conditions associated with food prodution are closely related to some goals highlighted by the united nations in the 2030 agenda to acheive sustainable world development. In this context,research for Alternative foods whose sustainable production and high nutritional quality guarantee regular acess to food for the population must be encouraged.Alternative foods can contribute to the local economy agenda and income generation.Population and demystifying the uses of unconventionly food products,food plants,ancestral grains,flowers,meliponiculture products, and edible insects as sources of nutrients and non-nutrients is another challenge. Nutrition | Alternative Food Sources | Bühler Group

Introduction

Now a days food plays a key role in our sociaty. present the world population was increased very high.ultimately the food demand for people also increases. Alternative food resources refer to non-traditional sources of sustenance that offer innovative and sustainable solutions to global food challenges. These include plant-based proteins, cultured or lab-grown meats, insect-based products,and sustainable farming practice. As the world grapples with increasing population demands and environmental concerns,exploring alternative food resources become crucial for ensuring food security and mitigating the impact of traditional agriculture on the planet. In 2009, the expert Meeting organised by FAO predicted an increase of around 34% of the World populationby 2050,associated with an increasein 70% food production demand.however,only in ten years,we experienced an increases of around 12.5% in the world population, to overcome the challenge of producing food to feed all nations,in 2015, the united nations signed the 2030 agenda which contemplates 17 golas to acheive the world's sustainable development.we can highlight atleast 5 goals from the 2030 agenda when we think about alternative food sources. it means that zero hunger, good health well-being, responsable consumption and production,climate action , life on land are goals related to the way we produce,access, and consume the food in the world. We have thousands of edible plants and animals through out the world out of which only about three dozen type constitute the maesure food of humans. the main food resources include Wheat,Rice,Maize,Potato,Barley,Otas,Cassava,Sweet Potato,Sugar cane ,Pluses,Sorghum,Millet,About twenty or so common fruits and vegetables,Milk,Meat,Fish and sea food.Amongest this rice Wheat and Maize are the major grains,About 1500 million metric tones of which are grown each year, which is about half of all the agriculture crops. about four billon people in the developing countries have Wheat and Rice as stapple food. Meat and milk are mainly consumed by more developed nations of noerth of america, europe and japan who cosume about 80% of the total. Fish and sea food contribute about 70 million metric tones of high quality protein to the world's diet.
But there are indication that we have already surpassed sustainable harvest's of fish from most of the world oceans. The food and agriculture organization of united nations estimated that on an average the minimum caloric intake on a global initial-scale is 2500 calaries/day.people receiving less than 90% of this minimum dietary calaries are called undernourished and if it is less than 80% they are said to be seriously undernourished.besides the minimum caloric intake we also need protiens,Minerals etc. deficiency are lack of nutrition often leads to malnutrition resulting in several diseases.
Transition to Alternative Proteins Continues |
Food Engineering for more information refer Click here.

Uses of Food

There are many alternative food resources that are being explored to help feed the growing population in a sustainable way. One such resources in insects. Insects have been a food staple in some countries for centuries, but they are now beggining to disrupt Western agricultural and aquaculture with their high feed efficients and attractive environmental credentials. Insects are a great sources of protien and can be used to supplement protien in a diet, with reduced resources and energy intensity per land area. Insects also have a higher feed conversion efficiency, lower risk of passing an infection on to people, and impressive nutritional stats compared with traditional animal agriculture. Insects can also replace soya as a cattle feed, which can reduce deforstation and associated biodiversity loss by requiring less land per kilo of feed. Oragnic farm waste can also be used for bioenergy to power homes and agribusinesses. These are just a few examples of alternative food resources that are being explored to help feed the growing population in a sustainable way. They are several uses of Alternative food sources:

Istead of quiche and salad, try soup and salad.
Instead of buffalo,muffins, or croissants, try peel-and-eat shrimp.
Use applesauce instead of oil when baking.
Use egg whites instead of whole eggs.
Eat brown rice instead of white rice.
Instead of chicken fried steak, try a veggie burger.
It is helpful to improve health and guarantee access and food intake.

Why to Find Alternative Food Resources is important ?

To reduce the environmental impact of food production and consumption. Alternative food sources, such as insects, organic waste, and plant-based proteins, can help lower greenhouse gas emissions, water use, land use, and deforestation associated with conventional animal agriculture123. To improve food security and nutrition for the growing population. Alternative food sources can provide more diverse, affordable, and accessible food options, especially for people living in food-insecure regions or facing malnutrition24. Alternative food sources can also offer health benefits, such as lower cholesterol, blood pressure, and risk of chronic diseases13. To support ethical and social values of consumers. Alternative food sources can address some of the ethical and social concerns that consumers have about animal welfare, food safety, food quality, and food sovereignty125. Alternative food sources can also foster local and community-based food systems that promote social justice and empowerment25. These are some of the reasons why finding alternative food sources is important for the future of food.

Agenda of Alternative Food Resources

An alternative food sources agenda is a plan or a strategy to promote the use of alternative food sources that are more sustainable, nutritious, and diverse than the conventional ones. Such an agenda aims to address the challenges of food security, climate change, animal welfare, and human health in the face of a growing population and a changing environment. Some of the possible actions or goals of an alternative food sources agenda are: To increase the awareness and acceptance of alternative proteins, such as plant-based, microorganism-based, and animal cell-based products, among consumers and policymakers12. To support the research and development of alternative proteins, especially those that can mimic the taste, texture, and nutritional value of animal products12. To create a conducive regulatory and policy environment for the production and marketing of alternative proteins, such as ensuring food safety, labelling standards, and incentives12. To foster collaboration and innovation among different stakeholders, such as farmers.
The use of alternative food sources to improve health
and guarantee access and food intake - ScienceDirect

Some challenges For Finding alternative food source.

Consumer acceptance and preference. Many alternative food sources, such as insects, algae, and lab-grown meat, face cultural, psychological, and sensory barriers that limit their adoption by consumers. Consumers may have negative perceptions, attitudes, or beliefs about these foods, or may prefer the taste, texture, and appearance of conventional foods. To overcome these challenges, alternative food sources need to be transformed into familiar and appealing forms, such as burgers, nuggets, or pasta, and marketed with effective communication strategies that highlight their benefits and address consumers concerns. Regulatory and policy issues. Many alternative food sources, especially those based on novel technologies, such as microorganisms, single-cell proteins, and lab-grown meat, face regulatory and policy hurdles that may delay or prevent their commercialization. These foods need to comply with existing food safety and quality standards, as well as ethical and environmental regulations, which may vary across different countries and regions. To overcome these challenges, alternative food sources need to undergo rigorous scientific assessment and evaluation, and engage with relevant stakeholders, such as governments, industry, and civil society, to establish clear and consistent rules and guidelines.
Technical and economic feasibility. Many alternative food sources, especially those based on novel technologies, such as microorganisms, single-cell proteins, and lab-grown meat, face technical and economic challenges that may limit their scalability and affordability234. These foods require advanced equipment, infrastructure, and expertise, as well as high energy and water inputs, which may increase their production costs and environmental impacts To overcome these challenges, alternative food sources need to improve their production efficiency and quality, as well as reduce their resource and energy intensity, through innovation and optimization. These are some of the main challenges in finding alternative food sources for thefuture of food

World Food Problems

During the last 50 years world grain production has increased almost three times, thereby increasing per capita production by about 50%. But, at the same time population growth increased at such a rate in LDCs (Less developed countries) that it outstripped food production. Every year 40 million people (fifty percent of which are young children between 1 to 5 years) die of undernourishment and malnutrition. This means that every year our food problem is killing as many people as were killed by the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima during World War II. These startling statistical figures more than emphasize the need to increase our food production, equitably distribute it and also to control population growth. Indian Scenario: Although India is the third largest producer of staple crops, an estimated 300 million Indians are still undernourished. India has only half as much 1and as USA, but it has nearly three times population to feed. Our food problems are directly related to population. The World Food Summit, 1996 has set the target to reduce the number of undernourished to just half by 2015, which still means 410 million undernourished people on the earth. n

Food Wastage

Food wsate occurs the entire spectrum of production, from the farm to distribution to retailers to the consumer.Reasons include losses from mold,pests, or inadequate climate control losses from cooking; and international food waste.
This waste is categorized differently based on where it occurs:

Food "loss" occurs brfore the food reaches the consumer as a result of issues in the production, storage, processing, and distribution phases.
Food "waste" refers to food that is fit for consumption but consciously discarded at the retail or consumption phases.

Wasted food has far-reaching effects, both nationally and globally. In the U.S., up to 40% of all food produced goes uneaten, and about 95% of discarded food ends up in landfills. It is the largest component of municipal solid waste at 21%. In 2014, more than 38 million tons of food waste was generated, with only 5% diverted from landfills and incinerators for composting. Decomposing food waste produces methane, a strong greenhouse gas that contributes to global warming. Worldwide, one-third of food produced is thrown away uneaten, causing an increased burden on the environment. It is estimated that reducing food waste by 15% could feed more than 25 million Americans every year.
In present Days the food wastage is increased in very highly.In so many ways the food was wasted.like in mirrages so many food items was prepared for people.But people was eat very less items. Remaining all items are through out side and waste the food very much. In present World so many people was DEAD due to lack of food. But some folish people was waste the food. And now a days all food was polluted by so many extra substances like farmers using pesticides and some coocking persons added some harmful substance to bring taste for food items.

Role of Food Waste Disposers in Food Waste Management

Govt Schemes

Menu Proposed Solutions To Food Waste

Globally, reducing wasted food has been cited as a key initiative in achieving a sustainable food future. Sustainable Development Goal 12 addresses responsible consumption and production, Which includes two indicators to measure global food loss and food waste.

In the U.S,on June 4, 2013, the Department of Agriculture and Environmental Protection Agency launched the U.S. Food waste Challenge, calling on entities across the food chain, including farms, agriculture processors, food manufactureers, grocery stores,restaurants ,universities,schools,and local governments. The goals are to:

Reduce food waste by improving product development, storage, shopping/ordering, marketing, labeling and cooking methods.
Recover food waste by connecting potential food donors to hunger relief organizatin like food banks and pantries.
Recycle food waste to feed animals or to create compost, bioenergy, and natural resources.

On September 16, 2015, both agencies also announced for the first time a national food loss and waste goal, calling for a 50% reduction by 2030 to improve overall food security and conserve natural resources.

The National ResourcesDefense Councial issued a summary paper providing guidelines on how to reduce waste throughout the food production chain.

The following are some focal points:

State and local government can incorporate food waste prevention and education campaigns, and implement municipal composting programs. Governments can provide tax credits to farmers who donate excess produce to local food banks. Proposed bills are currently in place in California, Arizona, Oregon, and Colorado.

Business such as restaurant, grocery stories, and insititutional food servicescan evaluate the extent of their food waste and adopt best practices. Examples include supermarkets selling damaged or nearly expired produce at discounted prices, or offering “half-off” promotions instead of “buy-one-get-one-free” promotions. Restaurants can offer smaller portions and donate excess ingredients and prepared uneaten food to charities. Schools may experiment with concepts that allow children to create their own meals to prevent less discarded food, such as with salad bars or build-your-own burritos.

Farmscan evaluate food losses during processing, distribution, and storage and adopt best practices. Farmers markets can sell “ugly” produce, which are discarded, misshapen fruits and vegetables that do not meet the usual standards for appearance. Farms can sell fresh but unmarketable produce (due to appearance) to food banks at a reduced rate.

The Environmental Protection Agency provides the “Food Recovery Hierarchy” graphic to explain ways to handle excess food. [8] From the most preferred at the top of the pyramid to the least preferred at the bottom tip, the methods include:

Source reduction: Earliest prevention by reducing the overall volume of food produced

Feed hungry people: Donating excess food to community sites

Feed animals: Donating food scrapes and waste to local farmers who can use them for animal feed

Industrial uses: Donating used fats, oils, and grease to make biodiesel fuel

Composting: Food waste that that is composed to produce organic matter that is used to fertilize soil

Food Recovery Hierarchy. (US EPA 2016) | Download Scientific Diagram

Wild edible plants

Menu https://www.talkerian.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/future-food.webp

Consumers have shown great interest and concern about their health and quality of life through healthy eating. In 2019, the EAT-Lancet initiative was launched by The EAT-Lancet Commission on Food, Planet, Health, focusing on the 17 goals of the 2030 Agenda, to discuss alternatives to improve human diet and minimize the impacts of the global food system on the environment. One of the EAT-Lancet initiative proposals for the adoption of a healthy diet is the increase in plant-based food consumption and the decrease in red meat and sugar intake (EAT, 2019)

In addition to the great potential to fight food insecurity in Brazil, WEP are important in the socioeconomic sector for generating jobs and income in the entire vegetable production chain. Adopting systems to produce nutritious and sustainable food to guarantee the population's food security is a global challenge. However, it is important to highlight that some non-conventional or wild foods, such as WEP, are considered regular by certain populations in determining geographic areas. In this sense, changes in people's food habits, especially in the urban area, possibly negatively impacted the consumption and recognition of WEP. Nevertheless, their nutritional quality and easy production should be valued and incentivized as an alternative to offer more sustainable and healthy foods to feed the population and a pathway to achieve some of the 2030 Agenda global goals.

WEP are sources of nutrients such as carbohydrates, proteins, amino acids, lipids, as well as bioactive compounds and phytochemicals, and several of them have therapeutic effects and are used to treat diseases such as azedinha (Rumex acetosa), beldroega (Portulaca oleracea), peixinho (Stachys byzantina), serralha (Sonchus oleraceus), and vinagreira (Hibiscus sabdariffa) (Botrel, Freitas, Fonseca, Melo, & Madeira, 2020). In addition to the nutraceutical aspect, they are easy to grow and adapt to the environment, not requiring pesticides or fertilizers for their cultivation (Kinupp, 2014), resulting in a more sustainable and ecological farming.
Diet quality is a critical link between food security and nutrition, where WEP can reduce the state of malnutrition in Brazil and other countries. Thus, humanity's greatest challenge is to transform conventional food production systems to obtain healthy, affordable, and sustainable diets. WEP are powerful tools in the fight against food insecurity since their planting is of short cycles, cultures are rich in nutrients, rustic, in several regions, they represent the country's cultural identity and favor the empowerment of family farmers (Jacob, Araújo de Medeiros, Albuquerque, & Bussmann, 2020).
WEP are important ingredients in the cuisine of different Brazilian regions, being part of the gastronomic identity of certain locations, such as the state of Minas Gerais, where they were widely consumed before the rural exodus. In some cities and regions, they are still traditionally consumed in salads or sautéed, which are easy to prepare most of the time. However, the type of culinary preparation depends on the edible part of the WEP, such as leaves, fruits, flowers, seeds, pods, roots, branches, sprouts, which can be consumed fresh or used to make juices, stews, salads, sweets, jellies, ice creams, sautéed, and cakes, among others. There are many ways to incorporate WEP in the diet; however, no public policies are established to popularize WEP consumption and no nutritional education activities to encourage their cultivation and use by the population.

Wild edible plants:parts of plant used and requirements for consumption.

Spilantol is a bioactive compound found in jambu (Acmella oleracea) leaves that causes numbness in the tongue and lips and has been showing potential for pharmaceutical use as an anti-inflammatory, antioxidant, antifungal, analgesic, and antimalarial substance ( Pastre & Alonso, 2016). Table 1 shows some examples of WEP and the respective edible part usually used for food.

Table 1. Wild edible plants: parts of plant used and requirements for consumption.

Scientific name	Edible parts	Requirement for consumption
Lactuca indica L.	leaves	–
Rumex acetos	leaves	Raw with moderation
Portulaca oleracea L.	stem, leaves, flowers
Tropaeolum majus L.	stem, leaves, flowers	–
Amaranthus spp.	seeds, leaves	Boil for at least 3 min
Spilanthes oleracea	leaves	Only cooked
Pereskia aculeata	leaves	Raw with moderation or cooked
Stachys lanata	leaves	Cooked
Sonchus oleraceus L.	stem, leaves, flowers	–
Xanthosoma saggitifolium	leaves	Only cooked
Hibiscus sabdariffae L.	stem, leaves, flowers	–
Cyclanthera pedata	fruit	–
Solanum paniculatum	fruit	Cooked, with moderation
Cucumis anguria L,	fruit	–
Maranta arundinaceae	rhizomatous stems	Only cooked
Dioscorea spp. L.	tuber	Cooked
Xanthossoma maffaffa	rhizomes	Cooked
Colocasia esculenta	rhizomes	Cooked

Reference: Brasil (2010).

Edible flowers

Besides their ornamental use, some flowers are recognized as edible and part of non-conventional foods. Edible flowers should be more exploited due to their nutritional and sensory contribution to foodstuff. The encouragement and expansion of the use of edible flowers by the food industry can contribute to this sector’s economy and promote the sustainable use of natural resources in the cultivation of these flowers, changing the relationship of people with the land, with food and rescuing them as food options, considering they have been used for culinary purposes since ancient times (Guiné et al., 2020, Rodrigues et al., 2017). Furthermore, edible flowers may also help maintain biodiversity, acting as pollen sources visited by bees and other social insects.

In France and Italy, calendula (Calendula officinalis L.) and rose (Rosa spp. L.) flowers were already used as ingredients in salads, purees, and omelets in the medieval age (Chitrakar, Zhang, & Bhandari, 2019). In recent decades, there has been an increase in research focusing on the potential of edible flowers as food ingredients and sources of bioactive compounds (Pires et al., 2018).
The most frequent form of flower consumption is in natura. A range of species has been used to garnish salty or sweet dishes, as well as fillings or ingredients in a variety of foods, especially bakery products (Fig. 2). In addition, it provides an exotic aroma, delicate flavor, and vibrant colors; the flowers add freshness to foods and can contribute to human health with their bioactive compounds (Fernandes, Ramalhosa, Pereira, Saraiva, & Casal, 2020).

Sensory properties, potential health benefits, and curiosity directly influence the attitude towards the consumption of edible flowers, which is also influenced by the consumers nationality (Matyjaszczyk & Śmiechowska, 2019). Flowers can transform simple dishes into exotic and high-cost foods (Barros et al., 2020).

Edible insects

The United Nations (UN) projects that the world population will reach 9.7 billion people by 2050 (United Nations, 2019); consequently, there will be a proportional increase in the demand for proteins of good nutritional quality, being the edible insects one of the alternatives to conventional products of animal origin. Furthermore, consumption of edible insects has advantages related to sustainability, such as the conversion rate of feed to protein, which is about 1.7 kg of feed per kg of insect, compared with 10 kg of feed per kg of cattle. Another advantage is the significantly low water consumption, being 1 L/kg of protein for insects in comparison with 1,500 L/kg of protein for cattle; generation of fewer greenhouse gases and ammonia; and need of considerably smaller spaces (such as vertical farms) than other systems of protein production, including cattle, poultry, and pigs.

Entomophagy has become a trend in food research, creating the impression that edible insects are a new food fashion, yet they are not. Insect consumption by humans goes back thousands of years and is still part of the traditional diet of at least 2 billion people, who belong to about 3,000 ethnic groups in more than 100 countries, mainly in Africa, Asia, and Latin America.

Nowadays, around 2,000 insect species are consumed worldwide in different maturity stages, such as eggs, larvae, pupae, and adults, being the most consumed beetles and caterpillars, followed by bees, wasps, ants, grasshoppers, locusts, crickets, cicadas, scales, true bugs, dragonflies, termites, and flies.

Eating insects can be good for the planet
- Europeans should eat more of them

Insects can be obtained both by collection in nature and farming. However, most edible insects are harvested from the wild. That is an alarming scenario because the unsustainable collection of insects in nature can lead to serious ecological damage, such as habitat destruction or insect population collapse (Yen, 2009). Thus, insect agriculture or “mini-livestock” cultivation can sustain the increasing demand for edible insects and ensure food safety (Stull & Patz, 2020). Furthermore, since mini-livestock cultivation allows controlling the environment in which the insects are reared, it is possible to diminish the sources of contamination instead of harvesting edible insects.

The number of insect species currently being reared for human consumption is limited. Most of those insects belong to the Orthoptera, Coleoptera, and Diptera orders and are mostly consumed in the larval (Coleoptera and Diptera) or adult (Orthoptera) stages. Also, these species have a history of already being reared as pet food or as bait for fishing (van Huis, 2020). From the Orthoptera order, the most common reared insects are crickets, such as Acheta domesticus (house cricket), Gryllodus sigillatus (banded cricket), Gryllus assimilis, Gryllus testaceus and Gryllus bimaculatus (field crickets), and grasshoppers, like Locusta migratora (migratory locust). While from the Coleoptera, Tenebrio molitor (mealworm) and Alphitobius diaperinus (lesser mealworm) are the most often reared species. Finally, Hermetia illucens (black soldier fly) and Musca domestica (housefly) are more frequently reared in the Diptera order.

Safety, flavor, appearance, size, availability, and nutritional profile are some of the requirements for an insect to be considered edible (Ghosh, Jung, & Meyer-Rochow, 2018). In order to define the best species for human consumption, Gere, Radványi, and Héberger (2019) conducted a study comparing the nutritional profiles of edible insects. Nevertheless, the authors concluded there are no “best” or “healthiest” insect species because they depend on the nutrients desired. For example, the adult Tenebrio molitor should be chosen based on the proximate composition, while Galleria mellonella larvae had the highest mineral content. Also, the nutritional profiles are highly diverse and are mainly influenced by the species and their developmental stage. However, to consider just the nutritional profile is not sufficient when choosing the best edible insect species for human consumption; it is also necessary to examine the rearing characteristics, flavor, and the potential for processing.
Calls for Regulatory Approval of Edible Insects | The Regulatory Review

Insect	Country	Protein (g/100 g) – dry basis	Lipids (g/100 g) – dry basis	Carbohydrates (g/100 g) – dry basis	Ashes (g/100 g) – dry basis	Reference
Mysore thorn borer (Anoplophora chinensis)	China	31.23	55.34	9.60	2.89	Wu et al. (2020)
Yellow mealworm (Tenebrio molitor)	China, Portugal, Poland	45.6–52.35	24.7–34.5	4.17–11.22	3.62–4.40	Costa et al., 2020, Wu et al., 2020, Zielińska et al., 2015
Tenebrio molitor (adult stage - beetles)	Mexico	54.86	12.50	nd	3.24	Flores et al. (2020)
Ulomoides dermestoides (beetles)	Mexico	40.36	8.33	nd	2.12	Flores et al. (2020)
Adult cricket (Gryllodes sigillatus)	Poland	70.0	18.2	3.75	4.74	Zielińska et al. (2015)
Adult locust (Schistocerca gregaria)	Poland	76.0	12.97	4.23	3.33	Zielińska et al. (2015)

Campaigns

Promoting campaigns on alternative food resources can raise awareness about sustainable options like plant-based diets, insect protein, or lab-grown meat. These initiatives contribute to environmental conservation and address global food challenges.

Neoliberalization and alternative food moments: GMO campaign

Highlights

Food movement's use of market-based strategies can undermine Neoliberalization
Context is an important variable influencing outcomes of using market strategies.
Organizational, professional, and motivational impacts are important variables for follow up.
Outcomes may differ by activists' proximity to inner circle of organizations.

Introduction

The regulatory restructuring of global agrifood production and distribution ushered in during the 1980s era of neoliberalization (e.g. trade liberalization, strengthened intellectual property rights, the promotion of the private sector, reduced state social welfare protections) has prompted a number of changes in food provisioning with significant social repercussions, from rising obesity levels and e-coli outbreaks to impoverished Kenyan's producing beans for rich westerners. In consequence, an almost equally defining characteristic of this food system has been the rising amount of resistance from a plethora of alternative food movements—e.g. anti-biotechnology, organic, fair trade, buy local, and slow food, amongst many—to what they consider the system's social irrationalities. The fact that this system has created as many detractors as it has social concerns has not gone unnoticed by agrifood scholars. Not surprisingly, many of these scholars have cast these alternative food movements [AFMs] in the context of Karl Polanyi's (1944) concept of the double movement, whereby market irrationalities will induce a societal protective measure, to prevent “annihilat[ion] by the action of the self-regulating market”.

More recently, however, scholars have begun to debate the relationship of these AFMs to the structures that they oppose, given their heavy reliance on the use of market alternatives, rather than through direct opposition. While some scholars celebrate the potential to transform the food system in this way—what Friedmann and McNair (2008) characterize as 'builder' rather than 'warrior' approaches (2008: 427)—others have a less optimistic view. Most significantly, Guthman (2007, 2008a, 2008b) argues that while AFMs oppose the market as the main structuring mechanism for nutritional, social, and environmental needs, for example, their opposition tends to nonetheless make use of various market mechanisms. Thus many AFMs engage in actions that tacitly concede the primacy of the market, de-politicize societal concerns, and elevate the role of citizen responsibility over state protections—essentially, they ultimately act to reinforce, reproduce, or otherwise reify neoliberal forms and undermine their broader goals. This neoliberal critique has itself faced debate, however, fuelled by cases that deviate from the projected norm of ultimately supporting neoliberal forms, and, even more problematic, it is dogged by concerns over the impact of the critique itself (Alkon, 2014; Andree et al., 2015; Harris, 2009; Harrison, 2008; McInnesetal., 2017).

The 'rigth to know' GMO

While the boundaries of the Vermont campaign are comparatively clear and distinct with respect to defining the boundaries of the ‘case’ (Yin, 2018), it is a case that cannot be separated from the actions before it. Prior to Vermont there had been similar mobilizations for labelling—by ballot initiative or legislative campaign—in numerous states as far back as a 2002 ballot initiative in Oregon. The most notorious campaign was California's Proposition 37, where opponents to GMO labelling had to spend nearly $46 million (versus supporters < $9 million) to defeat the measure by a narrow margin of 53–47 (Ballotpedia, 2012). More successful campaigns in Connecticut (2013) and Maine (2014) managed to achieve partial victories with the provision of trigger mechanisms. These required a minimum of other states to pass similar legislation before the law would go into effect, thus rendering them symbolic victories without the requisite (and difficult to achieve) similar passage in key states. Vermont's subsequent passage of the first labelling law without any such provision was thus a resounding success in a long chain of state-led attempts at GMO labelling. While a legislative campaign is not necessarily a social movement campaign, there can be no doubt that the VTRTK campaign was fully a movement—one of many “collective challenges, based on common purposes and social solidarities, in sustained interaction with elites, opponents, and authorities” (Tarrow, 2011: 9) in the long chronology of U.S. mobilizations over GMOs.

Campaigns to label GMOs emerged out of this very particular historical context of extensive activist efforts around biotechnology. There is, for example, little doubt that the master frame of ‘right to know’ and the repertoire of state-level mobilization for it—either by ballot initiative or by legislative lobbying—became what Tarrow terms ‘modular’ (1993: 300), while other strategies declined. By 2014, 84 labelling bills had been introduced in 29 states (Ballotpedia, 2014), in addition to a number of signature gatherings for ballot initiatives, and polls indicated strong public support for labelling. A poll by the NY Times, for example, found 93% support for labelling (Kopinki, 2013). Vermont's particularities do not end with its ability to succeed where other states failed, however; it is further distinguished by its being the last of its kind, as it became the precursor to a federal labelling law which most activists consider a radically impoverished version of their state law. The campaign thus provides a unique context from which to reflect on the consequences of food activism that conforms rather than opposes.

Neoliberalization of AFMs

Oversight of biotechnology thus exemplifies a number of the same concerns AFMs have with the food system more broadly, and opposition to it is consistent with resistance to other food system neoliberalizations. Unfortunately, this activism frequently resists in a manner which some believe ultimately reinforce the neoliberalization tendencies they seek to dismantle. This concern is oft noted by agro-food scholars who are trying to disentangle the promise of the diverse and persistent mass of these AFMs—whose very existence illustrates a broad level of opposition to the industrial food system—from the frequent marginalization and cooptation of their movement goals.

An important point here is that Guthman does not deny the existence of other, oppositional, forms of activism, but argues that they have been overshadowed by market oriented forms (Alkon and Guthman, 2017: 20). This perspective is reinforced by a rare quantitative assessment by McInnes et al. (2017), who investigated AFMs in four Canadian provinces for their level of convergence between initiatives that are “alternative” (to the conventional food system) and those that are “oppositional” (aiming for system-wide change) and found a great deal of convergence around AFM goals and strategies (2017: 797). Creating alternatives to the conventional market—with all its associated social irrationalities—hasbecome “the dominant mode of food politics” (Alkon and Guthman, 2017: 17). Consequently, instead of confronting these irrationalities in an effort to either replace or modify the conventional system, the result is the creation of a parallel system that only caters to the few with the means to engage in market politics and that leaves existing structures unchallenged

A further concern raised by Guthman over AFM's frequent engagement with neoliberalized activism is that the heavy emphasis on individual responses and market solutions ultimately act to limit what is possible (2008a: 1180). In short, not only are AFMs constrained in their actions, but these actions further constrain future actions by limiting what can be imagined. Carroll (2016) provides an example of this with respect to Australian states that imposed moratoria on GMOs despite national support for them. These states opposed GMOs not by focusing on health, safety, or other social concerns, but by focusing on the economic rationality of doing so. Hence Tasmania's position focused on their ability to stake out a “niche market of GMO free, or ‘clean and green’ foods'” (2016: 18). As Carroll characterizes it: In this sense, movements that may initially destabilize or challenge hegemony are reframed in a way that ignores the underlying basis for the opposition, detaching concern for a particular issue from wider opposition to the existing hegemonic configuration. Instead, the narrower issue is solved through a perspective that reifies or even celebrates the hegemonic discourse .

At issue is the extent to which an action challenges neoliberalization if it ultimately reinforces neoliberal ideas. There is no prima facie response to this concern. Arguably, it depends on how the action is embedded in the broader neoliberalization at issue, and the balance that is accordingly struck. Hypothetically, a successful national ban on GMOs resulting from opposition framed around ‘frankenfood’ fears or religious sensitivities provides no direct challenge to neoliberal ideas. Nonetheless, these impacts cannot be completely separated from a ban's concrete outcomes. As capital intensive, industry-regulated technologies that facilitate privatization and corporate concentration, agricultural biotechnologies are key components in the neoliberalization of U.S. agriculture. Thus while such a ban would leave neoliberal ideology unmolested, it nonetheless acts as a direct and significant challenge to the structural project of neoliberal agricultural reform. Neoliberalization can thus be forwarded on two fronts—as ideology and as practice—and it is necessary to consider both in any given case.

Food4Health Campaign | Alliance For Natural Health

Social Movement Outcomes

Ultimately, what the above debate is really about can be recast as the consequences, or outcomes, of social movements [SMs]. What are the ultimate consequences of engaging in market based strategies for the SMs that pursue them? Unfortunately, while scholarly understanding of the various inputs—resources, opportunities, tactics, etc.—motivating SM activism is fairly advanced, understanding of the consequences of this activism has lagged. Inroads have been made on narrow legal and policy outcomes, but broadening investigations into the outcomes of SMs in ways that are more socially meaningful is limited. In consequence, a significant social endeavour—attempting to affect change in the society in which you are living—is often treated somewhat clinically by the social sciences. As such, it is hard not to concur with a review by Jamison (2012), in which he argues that in many such works, “it is the form of activism, the so-called repertoire of actions that is in the foreground, while the substance of the arguments, the content of activism is largely neglected”.

In large part, this is because SM outcomes are complex and our understanding of them is consequently poor (Earl, 2004; Guigni, 1998, 2004; 2008). Amenta (2014) attributes this to difficulties such as the diversity of institutions that movements seek to challenge and weak documentation around movement mobilizations (2014:16–17). Chiarello (2018) contends that the highly effective tools used to investigate movement organization and mobilization are “significantly less assistive when used to examine social movement consequences” (2018: 81). It is clear that SM scholars appear to veer towards studies with less methodological difficulties. The scholarship that does exist on SM outcomes disproportionately focuses on variables that contribute to its political consequences, such as policy and its implementation (Amenta et al., 2010). Much less attention is paid to the broad range of consequences that extend beyond these to include such things as biographical or cultural outcomes and backlashes (Guigni, 1998, 2008; Whittier, 2004). Inroads have been made to expand these outcomes, however—Whittier (2004), for example, considers new mobilizations as an important outcome of mobilization, while Chiarello (2018) looks at the contagion effects of SM efforts from one professional field to another—and overall far more attention has been paid to cultural outcomes since Gamson's (1990) iconic... criteria of movement success.

Cultural structures are thus contestable, but nonetheless habitually reproduced by the routine practices associated with particular schema. Polletta argues that talking about the constraints of culture, such as we see in the above discussion of neoliberalization and AFMs, “risks suggesting that people are cultural dopes or strategic dupes” (2008: 89). Rather, cultural constraints act on people even when they are strategic, because it constrains what they can say and do in a given cultural context. Alternative actions are not precluded, but there is a high degree of risk to such strategies given that “[c]hallenging the norms of cultural expression, however necessary to securing real change, is a gamble” (2012: 51)—a point on which most activists are acutely aware. Despite the necessary concessions involved in conforming to these norms, it provides activists with more “calculable” results (2008: 91). In Polletta's conceptualization, therefore, conforming is not necessarily an ‘uncritical’ act of reinforcing neoliberalization, and can just as easily be a strategic act within a particular schema. Nonetheless, even strategic conformity can have consequences beyond those intended—impacts that affect both the activists who engaged in this action and the movement more broadly.

The above theoretical discussion provides a number of key areas of interest in this study of the VTRTK campaign. For one, to what extent is the VTRTK campaign illustrative of a turning away from the state as a regulatory agency for the protection of citizen concerns (ironically, despite the attempted use of state authority to enforce labelling)? To what extent is it compliant with—as opposed to oppositional to—the system it seeks to transform? And to what extent has neoliberalized activism colonized activists’ minds, such that they can only consider strategies that ultimately reinforce the forms they oppose? Last, and related, what can be revealed more broadly about the legacy of this type of activism on the AFM itself? While this last is exploratory, it is guided by the impact on activists themselves—such as on their professional and social lives—as an indicator of their ongoing activism and thus on the future of the movement. Indeed, as Polletta argues, one of the biggest impacts of activism may be successfully altering a schema, which can have real substantive consequences (2008: 85), both external to and within a SM. The counter point to this would, of course, be the very concern raised by Guthman and others—that there are also substantive consequences to actions that reinforce particular schema, such as neoliberalization.

Result

A key tenet of the neoliberalization critique was the concern that activists have turned away from the possibility of the state as a protective regulatory agency. Even without explicit probing, participants' opinions on the role of the state was frequently expressed—particularly with respect to the federal preemption of Vermont's law—and it was, at best, disregarded and more regularly considered an adversary, in cahoots with industry. While many clearly went in to the campaign already holding a dim view of the state, and participated in the campaign despite a weak faith in any level of government positively responding to their concerns, others developed this lack of faith as a result of its outcomes.

Activists' view of the state cannot be assessed in isolation from the historical context of national activism, however. As noted, the VTRTK campaign was solidly positioned at the end of a long chain of GMO activism that began almost as soon as the first application was released, and many earlier efforts had attempted to confront GMOs more directly. Despite the enormous amount of energy put into these efforts, however, there had been few victories. Even in Vermont, this history had yielded, as one activist described it, a “bitter string of lessons” (11). Two notable previous efforts were a 1995 law mandating labelling of dairy with rBST (overturned by the courts) and a 2005 ‘Farmer Protection Act’ intended to establish liability for economic damages from genetically engineered seeds (vetoed by Vermont's governor). Numerous participants described how divisive these previous attempts had been, particularly the latter, given that many farmers already relied on the technology. In addition to the disappointment of failure, the tension and resistance that resulted created a hostile environment for future activism. As one participant characterized it, in consequence of these earlier attempts the political scene in the years prior to VTRTK had “no stomach” for a ban regardless of the amount of public concern. Rather, in his experience, “saying the word ‘GMO,’ even in the legislature, in any political circle in the state of Vermont at that time, was kind of a no-no. Nobody wanted you to bring up those issues”

Sustainability | Free Full-Text | Food Waste Reduction: A Test of Three Consumer Awareness Interventions

Another avenue of investigation is whether this market-based strategy resulted from imagination curtailed by neoliberal thinking. While GMO labelling efforts are indeed relatively tame, with respect to their repertoires, and their focus on the market could be a strategy of compliance with neoliberalization, this assessment again needs to be qualified by the historical context of GMO mobilization. Arguably, the most radical historical tactics were those which threatened either the technologies' approvals or the proprietary framework on which they garnered their profits. Farmers who saved patented seed or activists' attempts to ban GMOs, for example, posed a direct economic threat not only to the industry but to the U.S. economy, given that the U.S. biotech crop market alone was worth 15.69 billion in 2014 (ISAAA, 2016: 102). As Kapstein and Busby (2016) articulate, markets are conditioned by a range of informal and formal regulations, codes of conduct, standards, rules of exchange, etc., which affect how a good is allocated (2016: 319). When there are changes to some of these conditions it creates different expectations and incentives and can result in a market transformation, a “fundamental change in the principle by which a good is allocated” (317). Outcomes of market transformation can include “changes in the process of a good; who has access to a good; who makes it; and even what goods can be made” (319). Mandatory GMO labelling, in a market where large numbers of consumers voice intentions to avoid GM labelled foods, would seem well poised to impose such a market transformation. While even mandatory labelling is vulnerable to a neoliberal critique, in this economic context whether it is actually compliant or oppositional is inseparable from activists’ intentions

While the state law was a huge activism success, full of transformative promise, the preemption backlash against it had begun well before its enactment. The first attempt to preempt the Vermont bill was in 2015, but was successfully thwarted. To clarify, while many engaged with state level activism precisely because of an inability to gain any traction federally, this law was not what they sought. In fact, activists had already dubbed the first preemption attempt the DARK (Deny Americans the Right to Know) Act, but by 2016 a ‘compromise’ version was successfully signed into law by President Obama, just weeks after Vermont's law was enacted. Lest there be any doubt that this federal law was a victory for VTRTK activists, a sample of their responses to the preemption should dispel it: “bitter pill” (10); “all for not” (11); “big defeat” (13); “really tough” (1); and “deflating” (6), among others. Thus while activists retained transformative goals, their outcomes clearly fell short.

Present Situations in Sociaty About Food

In present days the food wastage is increase very highly compare to past.this is mainly occur's due to negligence and lack of awareness in people

So much food wastage is occurs in mirrages. In marriages so much food was cooked but people eat less food. Other was through in dump.
Secondaly food wastage occur in big hotels,shops,restrarent etc.Here so much Food is wasted by workers in hotel etc.
Infact now a days good food is not avilable. Food is polluted in so many ways like farmers using pesticide's,fertilizers to get good yeild. And in hotel's they can add so many harmful substance to food to get good yeild.
In present days peoples faced many health problems due to non-availability of good food and sufficient food.
In this Alternative Food Resources is the best way to solve this type problems.
In the above methods the Food was polluted by people's